Constitution and other vessels - history or gameplay

[marecek05]

The whole point of Constitution was to be superb in 1v1, whether in fight or in flight.

 

I see her as a solo players eldorado.

Let her be the premier cruiser balanced by high buidling cost, same as a Vic.
She will still be useless for port battles.

Trinc will still be the scourge of the seas, since it would be significantly cheaper than Consti.

[jodgi]

Please, let us not pretend that a frig or belle can beat a connie. Opinions are one thing, taste another but a Constitution is way stronger than those two smaller ones. Don't spread disinformation.

I'm willing to show anyone by demonstration how effortlessly a connie can subdue a frig. I can meet up with any denier here in my "weak" fir connie for a demo fight. You can have the wind, any woodtype, carronades or any guns and upgrades you like. I can agree not to board you and not run (yes, a connie can even run from any ship in the game unless crazy speedmod disparity).

Do you guys believe that eco balancing measures actually will work, or do you just say it in order to have your super OP connie?

How many months after release will pass before the eco balancing is bypassed by grinding and the ship simply sits there, in it's full on OP glory, without a negative balancing factor keeping it in check?

Don't get me wrong, I have a chubby for your speedy live oak connie, We would sail the fuck out of such a ship.

Do you want us to have that ship?

[KingEmu (efalden)]

I strongly disagree with admin and agree with Prater, northern wolves, Alex Conner, Charles Caldwell the others have said.  the way the conni is right now laughable.  I was in a generic battle the other night and watched a live oak conni get run down by a live oak 74 while we were forming a line of battle.  it also seem a live oak Connie takes a lot more leaks than other live oak ships.  the way the admin has been about the conni for the last 11 months i am beginning to think it is something personal.   there is no call for the the conni to be one the slowest ships in game. 

 

 

 

edit: not sure anymore with the new patches that have come out recently.  

Edited November 7, 2015 by KingEmu (efalden)

[SteelSandwich]

I strongly disagree with admin and agree with Prater, northern wolves, Alex Conner, Charles Caldwell the others have said.  the way the conni is right now laughable it can get run down by a live oak 74 ,  and a live oak Connie takes a lot more leaks than other live oak ships.  the way the admin has been about the conni for the last 11 months i am beginning to think it is something personal.   there is no call for the the conni to be the slowest ship in game. 

A live oak 74 outruns a connie? -False

connie slowest ship ingame? -False

 

Regardless of the whole discussion, bringing in false facts discredits your whole argument. Same goes some others in here. Connie's EAT frigates for breakfast lunch and dinner.

Edited October 31, 2015 by SteelSandwich

[Alex Connor]

On the one hand, Constitution is clearly not being done justice right now. On the other, I am not in full agreement with some of Northern's proposals over speed, maneuverability and hp.

 

In terms of speed, there are over a dozen incidences where Constitution or another United States class frigate encountered British frigates, more than half displayed no particular speed advantage for either side, while the remainder were fairly evenly split between British and US advantage. The British frigates in question were in the 12.5-13kt ranges, between this and such reports as we have I'm strongly inclined to believe Constitution was also in the 12.5-13kt range (British frigates with speeds exceeding 13kts displayed clear and consistent advantage).

 

There is no reason to believe Constitution would maneuver better than a 74, but then again a decent 74 handles well and would not as a rule have problems against smaller opponents.

 

As far as hp (hull strength) goes, I could not support proposals that would give the Constitution as much hull strength as the Bellona without a revision of sinking mechanics to make crew size and crew loss more important than hull strength.

[jodgi]

Sigh...

 

conni is right now laughable it can get run down by a live oak 74

Disinformation

 

...and a live oak Connie takes a lot more leaks than other live oak ships...

Just a hipshot feeling you have?

 

...the conni to be the slowest ship in game...

You said that, even though you know it's not true.

Thank you for your contribution to this balancing discussion.

edit: Steel was faster on the trigger

[SteelSandwich]

With that said, regardless of your opinion:

-Why create a poll where you cant reply?

 

Furthermore, you way the poll is presented it steers answers towards historically representative.

The way you describe the difference between the options is very biased in favor of historical, rather unprofessional for a poll...

[Prater]

With that said, regardless of your opinion:

-Why create a poll where you cant reply?

 

Furthermore, you way the poll is presented it steers answers towards historically representative.

The way you describe the difference between the options is very biased in favor of historical, rather unprofessional for a poll...

 

I am not a professional pollster so I could care less about professionalism.  I am not a professional.  And I disagree with you that it steers people to one way or the other.  People who want tier based or like how it is, will choose that option.

 

Also, why no comments, because we have several threads already and can discuss it here.

[LeBoiteux]

Sorry man. But we have seen it all before in Wargaming. A national group is pushing for their favorite vessel to be the strongest.

+1. I would really hate it if the debate about stats of a given ship turned to be lobbying by a group, whether this group is called "national" or a multi-national fan-club ; and no more a matter of gameplay and context, that is discussed in comparaison with the stats of the other ships in game for game balance and everybody's fun.

[Snoopy]

Please, let us not pretend that a frig or belle can beat a connie. Opinions are one thing, taste another but a Constitution is way stronger than those two smaller ones. Don't spread disinformation.

[..]

Don't get me wrong, I have a chubby for your speedy live oak connie, We would sail the fuck out of such a ship.

Do you want us to have that ship?

Yes.

 

I agree with you that a fir connie will beat the other frigates - the comparison is about a live oak built one, not a fir abomination.

[Malachi]

On the one hand, Constitution is clearly not being done justice right now. On the other, I am not in full agreement with some of Northern's proposals over speed, maneuverability and hp.

 

In terms of speed, there are over a dozen incidences where Constitution or another United States class frigate encountered British frigates, more than half displayed no particular speed advantage for either side, while the remainder were fairly evenly split between British and US advantage. The British frigates in question were in the 12.5-13kt ranges, between this and such reports as we have I'm strongly inclined to believe Constitution was also in the 12.5-13kt range (British frigates with speeds exceeding 13kts displayed clear and consistent advantage).

 

There is no reason to believe Constitution would maneuver better than a 74, but then again a decent 74 handles well and would not as a rule have problems against smaller opponents.

 

As far as hp (hull strength) goes, I could not support proposals that would give the Constitution as much hull strength as the Bellona without a revision of sinking mechanics to make crew size and crew loss more important than hull strength.

 

 

Very good points about the speed, Alex.

 

One thing I´d like to add: in such 'british vs. american frigates' discussions, it is often forgotten that british ships actually had to cross the Atlantic and remained on station for months in hostile waters without real means and possibilities of proper repair. This certainly had negative effects on their overall performance. Not to mention diseases amongst the crews.

 

In my opinion, a good british frigate class like the Amphions fresh out of port and with a decent crew wouldn´t have had much of a problem outsailing Conny, except in very bad weather.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Malachi

[jodgi]

Yes.

Thanks, that so kin.... Wait a minute! My mother warned me that smart people would try to do this to me. It's that... reverse physiology, right? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice and I'll fite u irl!

I agree with you that a fir connie will beat the other frigates - the comparison is about a live oak built one, not a fir abomination.

Pfft, I can go in a live oak one too for the connie demo. Unless this is about proving that frigs can run away from live oak connies?

Live oak connies are kinda useless, we agree on that point. I feel your history pain on slow-ass live oak connies, I just don't care - I'm pragmatic about game balance.

[Prater]

How many months after release will pass before the eco balancing is bypassed by grinding and the ship simply sits there, in it's full on OP glory, without a negative balancing factor keeping it in check?

Don't get me wrong, I have a chubby for your speedy live oak connie, We would sail the fuck out of such a ship.

Do you want us to have that ship?

 

 

Give Live Oak less durabilites.  Scale the production of Live Oak logs in ports to produce enough logs for 1% of the previous day's playerbase to craft 1 Live Oak Constitution (so it would be more if they craft smaller ships or less with larger ships).  These Live Oak Conis will either be not used out of fear or would incur losses and there won't be "Coni Creep" because the production cost won't keep up. Then you really have a choice.  Spend the extreme amount of time to get enough resources for a Live Oak ship and pay the extreme cost in gold and labor hours.  Also, I suggested before to make the Coni cost 2000 labor hours and 2000-5000 labor hours in materials.  Can the extreme difficulty in obtaining one keep up with the demand for them?  And even if you get your hands on such a rare ship, will you risk sailing it? 

[DeRuyter]

I just read through Northern's list of references again, and I still haven't heard anyone specifically praise Constitution's maneuverability, despite near obsessive attention paid to every one of her other characteristics, even 'stoutness of spars.' We hear about the relationship of weight of construction vs speed, but nothing about 'nimbleness' (as it would be referred to at the time).

 

Against Cyane and Levant she seemed able to wear quite well and get in raking broadsides, bearing in mind, of course, that at least one of the other ships was near totally disabled in the running rigging.

 

As Robert Gardiner writes, maneuvers had fallen by the wayside in single-ship actions by this time. IRL stern camping wasn't really a thing, so all we really have here is a very well-handled and excessively well-manned Constitution pitted against British ships that were usually seriously below complement.  When you're short on crew, you forgo the fancy maneuvers and hope you can lay alongside at pistol shot and hammer away until the other guy surrenders. I haven't checked the complements of the British ships in each of the actions concerned, but I doubt they were all well-manned. Even their official listed complements were probably barebones at that point in the war.

 

 I think what we have here is a set of skillful maneuvers on the part of Captain Stewart when faced with 2 opponents. He saw that the second ship was moving to rake him astern and backed sails to prevent that among other things. Here is a more detailed account:

http://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/uss-constitutions-battle-record0/uss-constitution-capture-of-cyane-and-levant.html

According to these accounts both sides were maneuvering to gain advantageous positions. It is unclear when Cyane's rigging was shot up but certainly it was not in a good state afterwards. She was able to maneuver until she struck after a stern rake. It would be interesting to see if, as you suggest, the ships were undermanned.

[jodgi]

Give Live Oak less durabilites.  Scale the production of Live Oak logs in ports to produce enough logs for 1% of the previous day's playerbase to craft 1 Live Oak Constitution (so it would be more if they craft smaller ships or less with larger ships).  These Live Oak Conis will either be not used out of fear or would incur losses and there won't be "Coni Creep" because the production cost won't keep up. Then you really have a choice.  Spend the extreme amount of time to get enough resources for a Live Oak ship and pay the extreme cost in gold and labor hours.  Also, I suggested before to make the Coni cost 2000 labor hours and 2000-5000 labor hours in materials.  Can the extreme difficulty in obtaining one keep up with the demand for them?  And even if you get your hands on such a rare ship, will you risk sailing it? 

 

You already know that you would go through the extra trouble to get it, Tommy and Ellis would help. You would find a way, the crafters in Willemstad would find a way, the Russian Danes, the French and so on. I'm against specific eco balancing such as this. It's just a pain. You would have the best fast ship, by an excessive margin, be made virtually unattainable for normal players. I want normal players to enjoy this game and stay, I don't want them to rage quit because of an unbalanced ship they can't have  but the Rakers and TDA are using against them with total impunity. That is a very bad idea.

 

Maybe you have seen stuff like that work in EVE? Something everyone wants but noone can have.

 

I just know what I've seen so I have to get back to WoT balancing. The historical stats of an IS-7 are such that it would have been tier 11 or 12. To bring it down to tier 10 levels they absolutely murdered mobility, acceleration and destroyed accuracy and reload.

 

You're suggesting keeping the connie at impossible balance values and just make it available to an exclusive group of players. I can not see wisdom in this.

 

Eco balancing will not work, or, to make it work you'd have to go all korean style grinder and just piss off most of your players. Doran has touched on this recently, and months ago an EVE player called Garbad made a rather large post that included the reasoning behind why giving the super rich powergrinders special toys the plebs can not get is a very disruptive and bad idea <draws breath>.

 

Most of the time you are the voice of reason, Prater. But on the issue of the historical super connie you, and your buddies, are ready to close your eyes and invite the snake into the garden. Forgive me for throwing rocks into your dream machine, it kinda sucks to rain on this particular parade, but I have to try to stop you from selling your soul to the devil.

 

I will close this sermon with scripture: Luke 11:11:

 

"Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a historical connie, will give him an unbalanced abomination that will ruin the game instead?"

 

Now go home and sin no more.

[Prater]

What about the Santisima?  Now explain that.  HP, Firepower, Speed (possibly faster than the Coni!).  It isn't balanced.  It isn't a 1st rate.  It is a Uber Primo Rate.  Unless 1st Rates, 2nd Rates, and Superfrigates/Razees are made extremely hard to get and given less durabilites, and historical stats, it is ALL that we will have in 2-3 months.  That is what happened pre-wipe.  And then you can kiss your Beloved OP Trinc goodbye, because no one will use it when everyone is in Sols.  Even making the Coni super hard to get doesn't mean it will be all that we have, because of SOL creep, and because like you said, they are hard to get and only the "hard core" or the groups will have them.  Which, when it comes to 4th Rates and up, I am fine with that.  Majority of ships should be 5th and down.  3rd rates are an exception and should be easier to make than a Superfrigate (and cheaper).

 

Again,

We aren't asking for the Coni to be faster than the Trinc or Frigate or even be the same speed.

We aren't asking for the Coni to have the same HP as the Bellona (and actually, I would favor a compromise of 66-75% of the HP of the Bellona (Alex Conner's suggestion of 2/3rds) instead of the current 52%.

We aren't asking for the Coni to be more maneuverable.  Keep the current maneuverability.

We are asking for the Coni to lose the 18lbers but be given 42lb carronades instead (historical)

 

 

We are only asking for more HP, for its speed to be restored to what it was (relative historically to the other ships).

 

This isn't a killer ship.  Why would it be a killer ship?  The Coni can easily be melted right now by smaller ships.  I've seen it in Sea Trials and OW plenty of times.  The Trinc or even a Surprise can melt the side of a Coni pretty easily.  This is because overall, even by a Tier perspective, it is under valued considerably.   The Trinc has 75% of the Coni's HP, when the Coni is closer to the Bellona.  The Coni should have 66-75% of the Bellona's HP Tier wise, but instead it has 52%.  Even though it has 52% of the HP of the Bellona (and read 48% lighter), it is about the same speed and if given its historical wood type is considerably slower.  The Bellona has 71% HP of the Victory and 67% of the HP of the Santisima.  Now, look at those values.  The Coni's 52% is a major outlier.  The other tiers have closer to a 70-75% difference in HP with tiers.  And double that with its slow speed to where a Live Oak Coni will be caught by a normal Bellona or Santisima, then you have a MAJOR problem and MAJOR problem with the Superfrigate/Razee/4th Rate Tier of ship.  I mean, who here thinks SOLs should be faster than a Superfrigate when the Superfrigates are so much "weaker and lighter"?

 

 

 

TLDR  I would compromise with the Coni getting 66-75% the HP of a Bellona.  I would be thrilled with a Live Oak Coni not being able to get caught by any of the SOLs.  I would drop this argument for all time if we got these two things at the minimum.  I don't want to undermine Northern's proposals, but can't everyone at the very least compromise?  If the dev's took the multinational HP proposal being worked on that is based off historical stats of the ships, I would even compromise to make the Coni 85% of the Bellona (7270) instead of 95%, which would mean that the Trinc is 82% of the Coni's HP instead of 73%.

[SteelSandwich]

Don't take this post as an anti-constitution post, yet im am slowly noticing more and more incorrect statements of pro-constitution players.

Don't get me wrong, i am not saying that she doesn't need a second opinion performance wise.

 

Things that (as far as my knowledge goes) make no sense.

-You want an armament of 42lb carronades on her Spardeck and 24lb on het upperdeck. Yet, as far as my quick research goes, i cant find records of that. She has been noted on threedecks(i cant verify the credibility, yet has a reputation of being solid) to carry the following load-outs:

1798:

Upper Gun Deck 30 American 24 Pounder

Spardeck 16 American 18 Pounder

Spardeck 14 American 12-Pounder

1812/08:

Upper Gun Deck 30 American 24 Pounder

Spardeck 32 American 32-Pounder Carronade

Spardeck 1 American 18 Pound Carronade

1812/12:

Upper Gun Deck 30 American 24 Pounder

Spardeck 16 American 32-Pounder Carronade

1815/12:

Upper Gun Deck 30 American 24 Pounder

Stern Chaser 2 American 24 Pounder

 

Furthermore, in the poll you suggest that several players support this motion.

''Notable Brits who have supported in the past:  Alex Conner''

 

When you look up some of the past thread about the constitution, a comment from Alex Conner:

''Constitution is rather the opposite to Indefatigable, due to a shortage of 12 pdrs while fitting out she was the only member of the United States class to carry 18pdrs on the weatherdeck, with the overall weight of her hull this made her somewhat crank and she was considered the worst sailor of the class until the 18 pdrs were replaced with 32lb carronades prior to the War of 1812.''

 

Again, forgive me for my somewhat sceptical attitude at this stage, but i hope you see why these 'facts' slowly start to lose their credibility.

 

-According to the thread by Jodgi, in your(Prater) own post, you state the following:

Fir Coni: 15.5
Default: 13.9
Live Oak: 12.5

 

Now, i might be mistaken, yet i am fairly sure a normal(non-fir) bellona and victory will not outrun a Live Oak Constitution. A santi however, with speed upgrades, will(as soon in your post).

 

So you expect the ships to be the fastest possible version, yet you measure her Live oak speed without speed mods. Whilst it might be inaccurate, it would be representative to show her speed when she is live oak with exceptional speed. I deem it senseless to upgrade the base speed if you don't try to make her the best version of herself. Please, don't make her look like a victim.

 

-The Trinc or even a Surprise can melt the side of a Coni pretty easily.

And how does that compare to the sides of the surprise and trinc after recieving a broadside? A connie takes about 50% of the full of a frigate when firing double. I am rather sure that the return fire does not match that.

 

With all that said, i am not saying she doesn't deserve a second opinion.

Just make a solid suggestion, name numbers, make it tangible. AND without these 'facts'.

Edited October 31, 2015 by SteelSandwich

[Prater]

Note:   these are pre 10-30-15 patch values

 

Steel, you need to reexamine things.

 

I don't care what 3 decks says.  The Constitution is a United States Class Superfrigate.  The United States carried 42lb carronades.  18lb guns on the Constitution was overgunned and quickly abandoned and was involved in no major incidents with them.  The only reason why they had 18lbers was because they didn't have enough lighter guns and they were from a coastal fort (18lb long guns!).  After deployment they were removed and lighter guns were always used thereafter.  The Trincomalee is kind of similar to the Constellation, kind of.  Should we give it 24lb long guns because a similar 38 gun 5th rate carried them at one point (but was terribly overgunned) and later removed?

 

I try to compromise and make the Constitution weaker in one aspect for its increased speed and hp, and you pick at that.  You can't split the same deck in Naval Action either.  A Constitution with a full deck of 18lbers is too heavy and ahistorical.  12lbers is a good compromise that doesn't go over its historical armament and is only slightly weaker by a mere 48lbs per broadside.  48lbs is nothing, that is a brig.  Why should we go over its historical broadside weight?

 

 

 

Again, forgive me for my somewhat sceptical attitude at this stage, but i hope you see why these 'facts' slowly start to lose their credibility.

 

No I don't, because you would have the Coni overgunned.    Your 18lb Coni is just as ahistorical, as I have explained above.  And again, I stated in my poll, that by "Historical" I mean as close to as we can in game terms.

 

Victory?  Where do I mention Victory?  Please point it out.  As for the Bellona.  Have you sailed a Bellona?  I think you need to do your math again.  

 

 

-According to the thread by Jodgi, in your(Prater) own post, you state the following:

Fir Coni: 15.5
Default: 13.9
Live Oak: 12.5

 

This was an OLD estimate.  It is actually worse than that.  I have an Oak (Default) Coni with Green Speed Trim and Gray Copper plating that goes 13.8 knots.  That is with I think 3.5% speed boost.  Without the speed boosts, it goes like 13.3 or 13.4.  A Live Oak Coni (who has one to actually test?)  will probably go slower than 12.5 without speed boosts.  A normal Oak or Teak Bellona or 74 goes faster than this without speed boosts.  A Pavel goes faster than this.  A Santi goes faster than this.  The only SOL that does not is the Victory, and notice I never mention the Victory. 

 

 

 

-The Trinc or even a Surprise can melt the side of a Coni pretty easily.

And how does that compare to the sides of the surprise and trinc after recieving a broadside? A connie takes about 50% of the full of a frigate when firing double. I am rather sure that the return fire does not match that.

 

Maneuver.  The Coni can't maneuver very well.

 

Again, why should the Coni not be at least 66-75% of the HP of the Bellona, when every other major ship follows that pattern, being 70-75% of the hp of the ship tier above it.  The Coni is at 52% of the Bellona.

[Alex Connor]

I am in support of Constitution being buffed, the ship is not being done justice.

 

Speed for Constitution should be around 12.5-13ts with live oak (probably should be live oak only). Speeds are now historical-ish, so no adjustment needed.

 

HP in 6-6.5k range if Bellona and Trincomalee stay 10k and 4k respectively. If we can adjust the other ships would go for Bellona 10k, Constitution 6.7k and Trincomalee 4.5k. Plank rating needs a check, Connie's just feel soft (a lot more so than Bellonas built from the same wood, though that might be hp).

 

Armament 24 pdrs + up to 12 pdr cannon and 42lb carronades (as carried by the other 2 members of United States class). The current 18 pdr top deck should removed, the ship never carried a full battery of 18 pdrs (and performance suffered considerably from just a partial topdeck of 18s)

 

Maneuverability more or less as is, though other ships could use small adjustments (BP/Frigate/Surprise/Renommee/Pavel slightly reduced in turning, Santisima considerably reduced in turn rate. Or buff the 74/Bellona/Connie/Trinc a little.

 

Overall should be rare/expensive (a lot more so than current), as fast as almost anything else even when built with live oak (and probably live oak only), and enough armor/firepower to be more than a match for one 38 (but not enough to really challenge two 38s or a 74). 

[Crankey]

If the Constitution needs a visual rework, then lobby for it and request that the current hull be a place-marker, pending dev/designer time being available.

 

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/7507-poll-historical-constitution-or-current-constitution/  no discussion on your poll ?

 

Ask Admins to move this thread under your poll for continued discussion to keep the debate concentrated and available to all.

 

Your poll options imho should be for the historical facts to be investigated further, rather than a blanket statement that presupposes that the current Constitution is grossly inaccurate, perhaps other ships are inaccurate and need their stats tweaked rather than the other way around.

 

 

I am all for historical accuracy but find that sometimes National Pride can rose tint your perspective, After all didn;t the Victory have 6 decks 1500 men and a titanium hull . I will gladly dust off my library and play devils advocate over the next week and do my best to add to your arguments, but until then will with-hold any specific arguments on either hand.

[ragnar hairy trousers]

i am sorry to say this and please don't take it as anti american or something but the ship in question never proved herself against an equal opponent... i have no doubt that she was indeed equal to the task but to assign this vessel "super powers" is wrong..... yes her speed and turn rate should match that of the real vessel as should her strength,,,,

 

but my question really is this... If she is given real life statistics and american players still find her to be not as good as their preconceptions , will the argument continue??????

 

Oh and one other pause for thought.... what if another large frigate is entered into the game which outclasses said ship are you then going to complain that the consti should be made even more powerful

in order to meet the " legend " that has grown around this ship ...... it is after all a wooden sailing frigate.... a large 24pdr one but a wooden sail vessel none the less....

 

HMS victory is a symbol to the British the same way as USS constitution is to Americans but we understand that she is just another first rate.... a wooden sailing vessel..... we do not ask for Victory to be buffed in anyway even though she was the fastest first rate of her time..

 

Kind regards

 

Ragnar fluffy Bottom

[SteelSandwich]

If i read correctly the thing prater things are mandatory are speed and armor.

The things that Alex considers mandatory are guns and armor.

 

With that said, i ran a little test yesterday. I joined a battle with another dutch player who owned a live oak connie and we tested her speed. She reached 13kn in battle without any speed mods.

As Alex put it:

''Speed for Constitution should be around 12.5-13ts with live oak (probably should be live oak only). Speeds are now historical-ish, so no adjustment needed.''

So i am not sure where exactly lies the problem with her speed? It currently is at the top-end of that scale...

If you want a speedy one, just get one with exceptional speed, speed trim and copper plating and you can still have incredibly fast live oak connie.

 

On account of her guns:

As prater put it:

''12lbers is a good compromise''

''Why should we go over its historical broadside weight?''

Well, you are the one who suggests she should carry a heavier armament, i only reply to your suggested ajustment.

For all i care you set a make her limit set for M/L guns on 12lb and carronade wise on 32lb. As historical as it will get.

 

And for alex, since you cant split gundeck, its either you make her spardeck a full 12lb set, a full 32lb carronade set, or a full 42lb carronade set.

Of which the first 2 she actually carried, the latter one she(the constitution, not the sisters) never did.(or show me where she did)

 

So, in my eyes it comes down to this:

 

On account of her hull:

As i have said, that is something i don't mind.

I have said that twice in my previous reply. Since i dont really know/care about her armor value i will leave that up to people that have more knowledge of that.

Edited October 31, 2015 by SteelSandwich

[akd]

Constitution is rather the opposite to Indefatigable, due to a shortage of 12 pdrs while fitting out she was the only member of the United States class to carry 18pdrs on the weatherdeck, with the overall weight of her hull this made her somewhat crank and she was considered the worst sailor of the class until the 18 pdrs were replaced with 32lb carronades prior to the War of 1812.''

And again, she only carried a partial loadout of 18pdrs on the weatherdeck (just 16x 18pdrs, as opposed to full spar deck of 18pdrs in game) and only on one cruise, where they were considered a failure. Neither she nor any of her sisters ever carried a full spardeck armament of 18pdrs.

But then I'm not sure if any Leda-class ever carried a full QD/FC armament of 12pdrs, so it is a bit of a cascading issue.

It seems devs want Constitution to slot neatly in line-up between Trincomallee and planned 66-gun 4th rate. This is in my opinion trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole. Although just a "frigate," Constitution is in some ways a 19th C. (yes I know she launched just before the turn of the century) improvement on the 18th C. 4th rate. It would probably be better to consider her in between a 4th rate and 3rd rate in all aspects except firepower / crew complement. So really an impractical frigate or a weak line ship.

[maturin]

 

And again, she only carried a partial loadout of 18pdrs on the weatherdeck (just 16x 18pdrs, as opposed to full spar deck of 18pdrs in game) and only on one cruise, where they were considered a failure. Neither she nor any of her sisters ever carried a full spardeck armament of 18pdrs.

In the game she never carries a full spardeck of any guns, though. Or am I missing the point of this discussion?

 

 

It would probably be better to consider her in between a 4th rate and 3rd rate in all aspects except firepower / crew complement. So really an impractical frigate or a weak line ship.

Right. We are about to get a 4th Rate SoL (Ingermanland) with a complement of 350 men. That's 100 less than Connie. Chew on that for a while.

[akd]

In the game she never carries a full spardeck of any guns, though. Or am I missing the point of this discussion?

Yes, but I simply meant that for that one cruise all of the broadside guns carried on the spar deck (QD/FC, top deck, whatever) were not 18pdrs. They were a mix of 12pdrs and 18pdrs. I think that people see she shipped 18pdrs and think that she had a complete set.

Right. We are about to get a 4th Rate SoL (Ingermanland) with a complement of 350 men. That's 100 less than Connie. Chew on that for a while.

Indeed, even later 64-gun 4th rates had only marginally larger crew complements.